Tyndmyr wrote:Your logic boils down to expecting people to prioritize the same things as you, when that's definitely not the case in reality. Folks are accepting Trump as the option closest to their interests. Sort of. Trump still doesn't have an amazing popularity rating. By the numbers, people don't really actually love him all that much. They tolerated him enough for him to win the election, but not a good deal more.

Trump is getting 80% approval on immigration from Republicans, 80% approval overall, and Republicans seem to see terrorism, taxes, and immigration as higher priorities than abortion. I don't think there really are many non-racist Republicans.

I'm not sure that the numbers really support the idea that Republicans don't love him. I mean, he could be getting a higher approval, but 80% is still pretty damned strong. I would suggest that most Republicans are on-board with Trump's racism.

It is not insane to believe something utterly stupid. It is merely utterly stupid. And it is not racist to prioritize racial issues below (say) economic, nuclear, or environmental issues. Hypothetically, if there are two candidates: One is "blacks shouldn't be allowed to breed" and "full on government-backed investment in education, especially STEM, including (say) solar energy jobs programs in all depressed neighborhoods to replace lost jobs", and the other is "fight racism and tribalism - we're better than that" and "shut down all higher education - it's a drain on society", and you had to choose, you do not all of a sudden become a racist if you opt for the first candidate. Equally, you do not become anti-education just because you prefer the second one.

Your racism drumbeat is a false dichotomy. It is a logical fallacy. Irrespective of its political persuasiveness, it is bad reasoning.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Well, how about the real scenario? Trump's economic platform doesn't make sense unless you assume that all of our economic problems are caused by immigrants and foreigners taking our jobs. I'm trying to find a scenario that explains Trump without most Republicans having to be pretty damned racist, but I don't think it really exists.

The real scenario is about present day politics. The hypothetical scenario is about what does (and does not) make somebody racist. Beating the drum where it doesn't apply, just because it's emotionally and politically expedient, is a Bad Thing. Further, it undermines the actual case to be made.

Trump does not have an economic platform. He doesn't appear to have a platform of any kind. What he's doing is just being a bully, because he's occupying the biggest seat there is, and it makes him feel good. Trump cares about Trump's ego, and nothing else. Being racist (for Trump) is just a way to be a bully - to throw his weight around, and dare people to stop him.

He does many many racist actions, but I don't think he's racist himself, because that requires him to have an opinion on something that's not his own ego. Ascribe anything else to it and you will shoot at the wrong target. Do that and we get four more years of him.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

ech...We are in the Wrong Thread.If we want to discuss The Campaign, the Stupid Things our fellow American's believe, OutSide Interference, the role of Money in Justice and (as the Man says) All of That;

ucim wrote:He does many many racist actions, but I don't think he's racist himself, because that requires him to have an opinion on something that's not his own ego. Ascribe anything else to it and you will shoot at the wrong target. Do that and we get four more years of him.

You're acting like his racism isn't well documented throughout his history.

Thesh wrote:You're acting like his racism isn't well documented throughout his history.

I haven't studied his history to a great extent. However, there is a difference between doing something that can be seen as racist, and doing something for racist reasons. That's a difference that makes a difference, now. It's the difference between indifference and hostility.

Perhaps I'm wrong, and he has been generally hostile to {group} because they are {group}. But from what I've seen and heard, his harm to {group} seems to be more because {(member of) group} is not useful to his ego. And nowadays, because harming {group} strokes his base, giving him power, and thus stroking his ego.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

gmalivuk wrote:ITT: just how far will ucim bend over backwards to stand by his claim that Trump isn't racist?

I don't claim that "he's not racist" (even if I think there are better explanations of his racist actions). I'm not sure what's in his heart, if he even has one. And I do not at all dispute that he has done many ugly racist things. He may well be racist. But he may simply see racism as a road to power. That's equally ugly. Fire burns no matter the source, but you aim a fire extinguisher at the base of the flames, not at the flames themselves, if you want to actually put the fire out.

In any case, my point isn't about Trump, it's about Trump supporters. You claim that supporting somebody who does racist things makes one a racist. I claim that this is a false dichotomy, especially in the context of an election (where your choice is between this kind of bad, and that kind of bad).

Finding yellow bad worse than green bad doesn't make you green. Continually claiming that it does is a politically expedient untruth, even though I agree with the politics motivating the claim.

Put another way, I don't care whether or not a chain of reasoning ends at something with which I agree. I care that the reasoning is valid.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Personally, I view the person who knowingly does racist things but isn't racist to be more vile than the person who does racist things because they are racist. The second case is where someone should know better, but the first is where the person does know better and does it anyway.

CorruptUser wrote:Personally, I view the person who knowingly does racist things but isn't racist to be more vile than the person who does racist things because they are racist.

Yeah, I think I agree. But I was focusing on the reasoning, not the conclusion or the "vileness" rating.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

gmalivuk wrote:ITT: just how far will ucim bend over backwards to stand by his claim that Trump isn't racist?

I don't claim that "he's not racist"

How is "I don't think he's racist" not a claim that he isn't racist?

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

gmalivuk wrote:How is "I don't think he's racist" not a claim that he isn't racist?

When you look at the entire quote, it should make a little more sense to you. To wit:

ucim wrote:He does many many racist actions, but I don't think he's racist himself, because that requires him to have an opinion on something that's not his own ego. Ascribe anything else to it and you will shoot at the wrong target.

We can start with the difference between "I don't think that X" and "X is false". Read carefully. They are different. Do you see the difference?

You are trying to put a satisfying label on him to make a persuasive political argument. It implies that his racist actions are because he is racist. Or Jewish. Or white. Or German Or whatever you want to label. He may be racist. Or Jewish. Or white. Or German. But the important part is whether or not that {whatever} is the motivation for his actions as president, and it seems to me that the motivations for his (seemingly) racist actions are not racism, but ego. Even the "good genes" thing (while literally racist) falls under this ruberic, because overall, it seems to me that it's his ego gratification that drives his bullyish actions. IOW, not his belief that certain groups are inferior, but rather, that they are safely ignorable, and being mean to them helps build his base of power.

This is an important distinction.

If you keep the "racist" drumbeat, you drown it out. You make a faulty inference for political persuasion.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

ITT: just how far will ucim bend over backwards to keep doubting someone with as firmly established a history of racism as Trump is racist.

You sound like reporters in the 1920s saying Hitler's antisemitism was an exaggeration.

(Also the end point of your objection to my calling Trump voters racist seems to be "Maybe zero people have ever been racist." After all, you can never *really* be sure of why someone did something.)

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

But we are getting off topic. Well, we were already off topic, but w/e. The point is that there are non-racists who voted for Trump because they thought he was a less awful person than Hillary.

Since we are Godwinning it up in here, I'm also going to point out that a large number of Germans supported the Nazis for non-racist reasons, for example, there was a war going on and right or wrong if you lost it was you or your sister that'd be gang raped by the victors. I'll even say there are halfway decent folks that find themselves in Al Qaeda or ISIS; maybe they are some backwater farmer, don't know much about world politics beyond "foreigners bombed my cousin's wedding", and some guy is offering you a year's salary to pick up a gun and shoot the guys who for some reason decided to be in your country for as long as you can remember for reasons you don't understand.

Now ask yourself which you found more offensive. That I suggested there were halfway decent Nazis/terrorists, or that there were halfway decent Republicans.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

gmalivuk wrote:Non-racist Nazis are like good cops: you don't stay both.

You saying all cops turn bad? (Or quit or die first?)

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Some of them get fired for things like not shooting people or not keeping quiet about misconduct.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

“From what we can see, they were there. They have the ability to shut the power off. All that’s missing is some political motivation,” Mr. Chien said.

Still, new computer screenshots released by the Department of Homeland Security on Thursday made clear that Russian state hackers had the foothold they would have needed to manipulate or shut down power plants.

“We now have evidence they’re sitting on the machines, connected to industrial control infrastructure, that allow them to effectively turn the power off or effect sabotage,” said Eric Chien, a security technology director at Symantec, a digital security firm.

Tyndmyr wrote:Your logic boils down to expecting people to prioritize the same things as you, when that's definitely not the case in reality. Folks are accepting Trump as the option closest to their interests. Sort of. Trump still doesn't have an amazing popularity rating. By the numbers, people don't really actually love him all that much. They tolerated him enough for him to win the election, but not a good deal more.

Trump is getting 80% approval on immigration from Republicans, 80% approval overall, and Republicans seem to see terrorism, taxes, and immigration as higher priorities than abortion. I don't think there really are many non-racist Republicans.

I'm not sure that the numbers really support the idea that Republicans don't love him. I mean, he could be getting a higher approval, but 80% is still pretty damned strong. I would suggest that most Republicans are on-board with Trump's racism.

"I don't think there really are many non-racist Republicans"

A better question would be how they determined the person being polled was actually a Republican. One way it to obtain the voting rolls and call only registered Republicans, but you would be then lose the chance to poll whoever answered the phone and was willing to talk to a pollster. So what typically happens is you simply ask which party the person belongs and write that down.

Of course people lie. Google "unskewed polls" for the prime example. Dean Chambers noticed in 2012 that the polls included less Republicans than should be expected due to random distribution and then "unskewed" the polls assuming that these additional "unpolled" Republicans would vote the same way the self-identifying Republicans would vote. It turns out that the original polls were right and his "unskewed" were wrong, because the registered Republicans who refused to admit they were Republicans either voted for Obama or stayed home.

So it is much more likely to be accurate to say that "people who self identify with Trump's party support Trump's policy", then "people who are still listed as registered Republican support Trump's policy. In general it is a good idea to simply ignore all polls that don't carefully describe their entire methodology, complete with all questions asked. Another good idea is to go to 538.com for all you polling needs, who tend to make sure the methodologies are correct and also combine multiple polls into a presumably more accurate one. Polls in general tend to be put out propaganda for PR firms who then pass it as clickbait for clickbait companies.

wumpus wrote:A better question would be how they determined the person being polled was actually a Republican. One way it to obtain the voting rolls and call only registered Republicans, but you would be then lose the chance to poll whoever answered the phone and was willing to talk to a pollster. So what typically happens is you simply ask which party the person belongs and write that down.

That is, unfortunately, a general polling problem. And I agree that "correcting" the data can result in even worse data. It's all too easy to insert your own biases. 538 is indeed pretty good, all things considered. Not perfect, but they make a good attempt, and don't mind admitting fault when wrong. That goes a long way for me.

That particular survey doesn't particularly match up with the results I found up-thread, which is interesting? I don't see how Trump is getting 80% approval on immigration, though. I clicked into Thresh's linked surveys, and it looked like about 40% strongly disapproved of Trump's immigration policies(with a good amount registering lesser disapproval or no interest). While it's true that, generally, Republicans support Trump on this more than democrats, this is also true of pretty much any of Trump's policies.

It is not overly surprising that the president is more popular among his own party than the opposition, and when issues such as "how trump is handling medicare" exhibit almost an identical spread of opinion, it is difficult to believe that racism is the primary cause.

sardia wrote:What about partisanship is a hell of a drug, that explains a lot, no?

I think this is, in large part, an explanation for much of this. Some republicans are racist, certainly, but there is also a lot of justification happening. The apparent need to try to justify Trump as not racist on the part of many indicates that they have at least some conflict in values happening they feel the need to rationalize.

Thesh wrote:Well, how about the real scenario? Trump's economic platform doesn't make sense unless you assume that all of our economic problems are caused by immigrants and foreigners taking our jobs. I'm trying to find a scenario that explains Trump without most Republicans having to be pretty damned racist, but I don't think it really exists.

Nah. A heaping helping of blaming the left also works. Trump routinely frames deals struck by his predecessors as bad, and his as far better. He's done his best to create a narrative of the left handing out stuff to other countries(to include traditional allies, and those not particularly noted for us outsourcing manufacturing there). It pretty directly taps into partisanship. Playing to existing biases is super easy.

It's not so much a coherent economic plan as it is a coherent marketing plan. But hey, Trump's a salesman at heart. So that's pretty much what we got.

CorruptUser wrote:Personally, I view the person who knowingly does racist things but isn't racist to be more vile than the person who does racist things because they are racist. The second case is where someone should know better, but the first is where the person does know better and does it anyway.

Not really sure which category Trump falls into, but yeah, I don't particularly care to defend him on this score. I appreciate those playing devil's advocate, but sometimes a thing is obvious enough to just let it go without requiring further evidence. I don't think all Republicans/Trump voters are racist, but I'm not gonna bother to argue against "Trump's done some racist shit".

gmalivuk wrote:Yeah, fine people on both sides, I'm familiar with the talking point.

Non-racist Nazis are like good cops: you don't stay both.

I think you can have good cops. However, it's mostly a thing that happens in fairly small departments, where they tend to have stronger ties to the community, and a generally small force. If it's literally half a dozen people in a podunk area, enough folks know each other that overt, casual uses of power generally has some consequences, even if only social. The larger the force, and the more faceless the police, the less effective social repercussions are.

Tyndmyr wrote:I think you can have good cops. However, it's mostly a thing that happens in fairly small departments, where they tend to have stronger ties to the community, and a generally small force. If it's literally half a dozen people in a podunk area, enough folks know each other that overt, casual uses of power generally has some consequences, even if only social. The larger the force, and the more faceless the police, the less effective social repercussions are.

There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

Tyndmyr wrote:I think you can have good cops. However, it's mostly a thing that happens in fairly small departments, where they tend to have stronger ties to the community, and a generally small force. If it's literally half a dozen people in a podunk area, enough folks know each other that overt, casual uses of power generally has some consequences, even if only social. The larger the force, and the more faceless the police, the less effective social repercussions are.

Arpaio was definitely a bad apple for sure. His actual practices were...pretty awful.

The rest of this movement...mixed feelings. On the one hand, police definitely do have some latitude in what laws are actually enforced. This is...often troublesome. I believe laws are very frequently enforced unequally, with wealthy, connected, etc folks having a significant advantage. Not just a small town thing, it's pretty explicit even in large cities. I would generally rather that personal principle, rather than race or power, be the discriminator of what enforcement is let slide.

But on the flip side, statements like "why do those nine guys decide what the law is" indicate a very troubling attitude towards power. Too much focus on their own personal power is worrisome.

That said, the article's link between these guys, and the posse trend in the '70s seems a bit tenuous. Yeah, they both claim to be constitutionally enabled, but that's true of literally everything from 100% legitimate things to things that are complete bullshit. It appears they went a bit far from entirely legitimate concerns early on to a historical scaremongering. In this case, you've pretty much got a relatively minor single figure who was corrupt, but was, yknow, recognized and sent to trial. Nobody died in the process.

Compared to a lot of other police misbehavior incidents, that's actually a really good outcome.

There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

Anyone *can* be bad, it's mostly a matter of if that gets punished or not. Or at least, attempted. In this case, forging records got him brought to trial. And, ultimately, the voters also got rid of him. It's not an ideal situation, but it indicates that he is not wholly above the law.

At least, not so far above it as those who straight up kill people without any sort of good justification, and don't even go to court or suffer any sort of adverse action.

It's not a perfect solution, but even Finch's case, which is held up as a near-worst case scenario for a tiny sheriff's office, is fantastic compared to what we see coming out of larger police departments.

Note that the lead officer was considered "untouchable" for his corruption, so presumably his protectors and kickbacks go much higher. It also required a Federal probe as neither Baltimore nor Maryland prosecutors wanted/could do any sort of investigation or prosecution. It will be interesting to see how Federal prosecution plays out, and the political fallout (the President suggested "don't be too nice" when transporting suspects, presumably alluding to Baltimore cops street execution of Freddie Gray for loitering).

Tyndmyr wrote:I think you can have good cops. However, it's mostly a thing that happens in fairly small departments, where they tend to have stronger ties to the community, and a generally small force. If it's literally half a dozen people in a podunk area, enough folks know each other that overt, casual uses of power generally has some consequences, even if only social. The larger the force, and the more faceless the police, the less effective social repercussions are.

It might be possible. In my experience small departments are also the ones that manage to be the worst because they don't really have any accountability - so long as the guy running the department is on board, you can do whatever you want and you're guaranteed to get away with it. You get to yield the hammer of the law to be treated like royalty in your little community, and overt, casual uses of power are how you mantain that (along with making sure that the handful of guys that control the money in your town have their interests well served).

Also common is for a split community to have whichever part of the split is more powerful use the police to actively oppress the other part, establishing a two-tier system where the "good cops" are only good to the majority and are very, very bad to everyone else.

I haven't seen the 'good cop' version of a small police force but I'm sure it must exist somewhere! (my own at the moment is middling sized and actually fairly decent)

The 'police not being required to stop a massacre' thing is most likely just a way of protecting the police department from a deluge of frivolous lawsuits. The police can't be everywhere, 24/7, and it's unreasonable to demand that they prevent every single mugging that occurs. The problem is when you start allowing the police to be liable for obvious dereliction of duty, you open the legal floodgates for the questionable dereliction of duty, and pretty soon the city is bankrupt due to legal fees. The result is that we end up protecting the obviously incompetent police, even if they do get fired but only if there is a massive public outcry.

Because determining what is reasonable would be a matter for the courts, and thus waste an inordinate amount of time/money. Not to mention that the courts aren't likelyto side against the police even in the most egregious of cases, so it's mostly a moot point.

CorruptUser wrote:Because determining what is reasonable would be a matter for the courts, and thus waste an inordinate amount of time/money. Not to mention that the courts aren't likelyto side against the police even in the most egregious of cases, so it's mostly a moot point.

Going to court requires time and money for everybody else, why not for the cops? Why is their budget and time more valuable than anyone else's?

Tyndmyr wrote:I agree that the police are not responsible for preventing every bad thing ever.

However, I feel that they ought to make a reasonable effort to respond when something bad does happen.

Reasonable person standards work well enough for plenty of other places in law, why not police?

Is it reasonable for a single officer to go into a situation like that though? The shooter here was better armed (though the officer couldn't have known that) and already inside the building. I mean seems like it'd be somewhat 50/50 on who surprised who at that point should this officer have gone inside to try and apprehend/kill the shooter. I don't know what kind of training these SROs have or this guy's background (article said he retired after this incident so he wasn't some young guy).